ENVE 4810 S2025
Labs
Page 1 of 3
Lab 2: How Good is Group Think for Stakeholders and Other
EA Issues?
Your names
Jonathan Mikitch, Adam Brissette, Tony Nakhle, Aidan Tuquero
Student IDs
110104098, 110105256, 110103942, 110067514
Background Information
Read the linked articles about electric vehicle (EV) battery plants.
It is now 2030, and the Stellantis LG EV Battery Plants as proven to be immensely successful in terms of profitability
and reputation. A new consortium of battery manufacturers, OEM parts makers, and investors – Advanced Energy
Leadership and Technology (AELT) – is eager to establish another EV battery plant in the Windsor region because of
the Stellantis LG Plant success. AELT’s proposed plant would be approximately double the size and operational
capacity of the Stellantis LG plant. Furthermore, AELT is proposing to host more primary production onsite, including
importing raw and controlled substances from around Canada and the world, to make the battery components to reduce
the amount of outsourcing of products and parts used in their next generation EV batteries. However, the electric
vehicle market has plateaued slightly, and forecasts call for modest growth of EV vehicles rather than the rapid growth
experienced between 2025 to 2028 after most countries finally agreed to a concrete plan to reduce CO2 emissions
from transportation. Furthermore, Windsor’s manufacturing potential is very near capacity because AELT’s plant would
require additional, significant power, and there are concerns if there is enough capacity in the electric grid to power
AELT’s plant. The addition of the new hospital, the Gordie Howe Bridge, and other recent projects have placed more
pressure on the available land remaining, and stressed the resources that support communities and infrastructure.
AELT wants to pursue their newly proposed EV battery plant, but the above issues (and more!) have been raised as
the consortium considers how to best approach the environmental assessment process. These range from global
concerns that EV battery technology might not be as sustainable as initially thought of in the early 2000s; to the growing
public sentiment that old batteries should be recycled for new EVs, instead of constantly manufacturing new batteries;
to community concerns that Windsor’s infrastructure and community resources cannot easily handle another “mega
plant” of construction.
Select the BEST answer that answers or addresses the issues presented, and explain your choice.
Q1. AELT argues that despite the softening market, a feasibility study is not necessary because it is “obvious that the
world is going to electric”. Would the various stakeholders involved in AELT’s proposal consider completing a feasibility
study necessary?
A. Yes, such a study is mandated by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA).
B. Yes, even if such a study is not required by the CEAA, it would be required under provincial legislation,
such as the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.
C. No, because most federal and provincial legislation cover practically all aspects of the environment in
an environmental assessment, a feasibility study is redundant and is not necessary.
D. Yes, a feasibility study establishes whether or not a proposed project would fulfill its intended purpose.
Explain why you choose the above answer: Feasibility studies are important for large scale projects. It helps
prove the useability and the risks that can be involved with the project. Even if a feasibility study isn’t required
it should be done.
ENVE 4810 S2025
Labs
Page 2 of 3
Q2. Two of the City of Windsor engineers are arguing about whether not the proposed AELT EV plant would require
screening as part of an environmental assessment. One argues “no”, while the other firmly believes that “yes” screening
needs to be done. Is the best answer “no” or “yes”?
A. No. Screening occurs after scoping and refers to the detailed health screening step in a human health
risk assessment.
B. Yes. Screening involves extensive use of matrices and as a result, is much more reliable than scoping.
C. Yes. Screening is necessary when the project expands from a full environmental assessment to a class
environmental assessment and triggers the screening step, which is the case here.
D. Yes. Screening would likely be triggered by various Ontario and Canadian government acts given that
the project involves regional and national interests.
Explain why you choose the above answer: Screening would probably be done as it is mandated by multiple
regulatory agencies. It will show the risks and benefits associated with the project and can be used to create
a roadmap moving forward.
Q3. The type and extent of the environmental assessment that AELT pursues may hinge on what is deemed to be a
“significant” impact. From a stakeholder perspective, what might serve as a useful definition for a significant impact?
A. Significant might not be definable and therefore no one single definition can be given to stakeholders to
discuss.
B. Significance is a vague, imprecise concept, and so various stakeholders might have different ideas.
Significance is therefore impossible to define.
C. Significance could be defined by considering if an impact to a stakeholder is reversible or not.
D. Significance and levels of significance are defined by the proponent of a project; other stakeholders do
not have to be considered.
Explain why you choose the above answer: Significance can be very difficult to define for different people;
however, regarding environmental impacts, significance can be defined by anything that is non-reversible. For
example, an oil spill or explosion are significant and they are non-reversible. Therefore, for stakeholders,
“significant” impact can be defined as anything that is non-reversible.
Q4: Assume that the proposed AELT EV battery plant evolves into a serious proposal and an environmental
assessment is to be conducted. As part of the EA, several local hearings are conducted to invite comments from the
local community. After the first two open houses, a local citizen’s group complains that they received no notice of the
earlier open houses in which the proposed EV plant was presented for public comment. AELT personnel had placed
ads in the local newspaper, dropped notices in local area mailboxes, placed plans in the local library, and established
and promoted on social media a website informing the community of the open houses. The company’s actions are:
A. Insufficient because personal emails should have been sent to each local resident to communicate the
open houses.
B. Inappropriate because of Canadian privacy laws the only legal way to communicate with residents is via a
secure email system.
C. Sufficient because the company seems to have undertaken reasonable efforts to inform the local public.
D. Appropriate because the company has followed risk communication guidelines for emergencies.
Explain why you choose the above answer: AELT seems to have made very reasonable efforts to inform the local
public about the proposal. They hosted multiple open houses for the community to be able to ask questions
and comment their concerns, as well as posted signage at local venues for the public to see. They have also
placed notices in the public’s mailboxes and newspaper. They cannot be expected to go knocking door-todoor.
Q5: The same citizen’s group calls the City the next day to complain that the noise that would be created by the
construction and then transportation of materials and batteries to and from the AELT battery plant would be very
disruptive, especially since Windsor’s infrastructure and land plans are limited for large megaprojects. The City assures
the group that AELT will conduct noise assessment studies to assess the noise posed. The citizen’s group dismisses
ENVE 4810 S2025
Labs
Page 3 of 3
the need for this future assessment, arguing that studies in Toronto, Boston, and Tokyo show that the noise from yet
another EV battery plant in Windsor can be predicted to be a problem. Is the citizen’s group correct?
A. The citizen’s group is correct: noise is a well-studied stressor, and is highly predictable and does not need
further study.
B. The citizen’s group is incorrect: noise is not a stressor but an aesthetic factor, and therefore should be still
be studied under local conditions.
C. The citizen’s group is incorrect: noise may be highly predictable, but it should still be studied under local
conditions.
D. The citizen’s group is correct, but for the wrong reason: noise is an endpoint, not a stressor.
Explain why you choose the above answer: Noise studies should be conducted for the construction of this battery
plant, as it will not be the exact same conditions as the studies conducted in Tokyo, Toronto, and Boston.
Noise studies may be predictable; however, they can still differ from city to city. The noise study will also be
a good baseline or reference point for any future construction that may take place in the future in the city.
Q6: At the latest open house, AELT’s engineering staff prepares a matrix that shows in their best judgment how the
new EV plant may impact the local community. Surprisingly, the response of the audience is hostile, and the engineers
are challenged to present information that is more relevant. They are not sure why. The hostile response could be
because:
A. The matrix probably displayed a lot of information and relationships well, but it is difficult to show the
information explicitly.
B. The matrix probably displayed information from the engineers’ perspectives which would not always
match what the local community cares about.
C. The matrix was probably done as well as it could have been done, and the audience’s hostility simply
has to be accepted (hey, that’s life!)
D. The matrix probably ignored social factors, which are often not shown in a matrix because it cannot
easily show socio-economic factors.
Explain why you choose the above answer: The engineers seemed to have prepared the information in the most
logical way in their eyes, which may not be the best way to display it to the public. An immediate indicator of
that would be that they used a matrix, which is not often used by non-engineers. The engineers should have
taken input from other non-engineering departments to help them convey the information to the public in the
best manner possible.